Precision and Accuracy in LF Photography: How much is enough?

[Bernice Loui]

Pick one film and one film only.. Pick one developer and one developer only. Fix the developer mix ratio, Fix the developer temperature, Fix the developing method.. these three basic post exposure items must be maintained consistent. No variations allowed as with film and developer.

Get a gray step scale and 18% gray card. Load film into film holders, one lens-shutter on one camera and one light meter.
Make an image of the gray scale step tablet and 18% gray card, metered using the meter that has been used to date. Ideally, this would be a spot meter (on the 18% gray card), then check with a incident light meter. Add bellows factor compensation. Do this on a "Sunny 16 day".

Make a series of film exposures at say 1/2 f-stop or 1 f-stop increments +/- (this is kind_A big). Develop the film in the chosen developer "normal development time".
Ideally check the negative film density with a densitometer. Alternatively, make a print or scan to calibrate the gray scale step tablet and 18% gray card. Match up gray step tablet and 18% gray card to post process image. Once this is known, the basic density range based on exposure and post process system has some what of a handle allowing assessment of how the taking scene light range might render on the print image.

Essentially you're trying to calibrate the post film exposure process to film and lens-shutter to what your print goals are to within the limits of the film-developer.
What is marked on the box might not meet your image making goals at all. This is why calibrating the system is so important. Once the system mid-point is figured out. Test again for over expose-under develop (contrast range compression) and under expose-over develop (contrast range expansion).

Trying too many variables like film, developer and all that can often result in KYOS, following what is written on the box or instructions is at best guess based on some one's ideal of what the negative to print image should look like.

Stick with one set of photographic materials, and image making tools. Get to know them really well before trying other photographic materials.



Bernice

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

[grat]

@Havoc, I'm not sure what's going on, but as a novice at film, who started with LF, went to MF because I wanted more practice at a cheaper per-frame cost, and then picked up a 35mm because all the cool kids were doing it (not really, but 35mm film is the least interesting format for me-- Until I found this nifty little 35mm rangefinder from 1958), your experience is wildly different from mine.

I've had grossly over-exposed, and under-exposed negatives, but I've always understood what went wrong-- usually operator error (Copal Press shutter bit me, forgot to the put the 6 stop filter on, quite literally set the wrong aperture on a shutter).

I don't think I'd use an incident meter for the kind of test scene you posted above, personally-- but it's hard to say, since you don't list the EV or the shutter aperture/speed settings.

My shutters are all in the "good enough" category-- their speeds are within 10% or so of the rated shutter speed, and they range from my "new" lens (Caltar-II S 210mm f/5.6, aka Symmar-S), to a Fujinon 150mm f/5.6 (in the aforementioned Copal Press), which is old enough that the writing is on the inside of the barrel and it's only 46mm filter thread) to an ICA "Maximar" 120mm f/5.4 from 1914. I don't think I've used my Fuji 90mm f/8 yet.

All produce good enough results with Foma (Arista EDU Ultra) 400, Rollei Infrared 400 and Ilford FP4+ 125, all shot at box speed. My 1946 mini Speed Graphic which according to the seller sat in a closet from 1968 to last year, is reliable enough that I haven't had any issues with Foma 400, FP4+, or Ektar 100-- but that's technically a medium format camera.

I would start a separate thread-- LF just isn't that inconsistent, and it's certainly no different than MF or 35mm. If I had to make a guess, I would say your problem seems to be metering-- but that's a guess, based on very little information.

[Havoc]

I would start a separate thread-- LF just isn't that inconsistent, and it's certainly no different than MF or 35mm. If I had to make a guess, I would say your problem seems to be metering-- but that's a guess, based on very little information.

I'll start a new thread about this when I found where I'd do this best.

Pick one film and one film only.. Pick one developer and one developer only. Fix the developer mix ratio, Fix the developer temperature, Fix the developing method.. these three basic post exposure items must be maintained consistent. No variations allowed as with film and developer.
...
Trying too many variables like film, developer and all that can often result in KYOS, following what is written on the box or instructions is at best guess based on some one's ideal of what the negative to print image should look like.

Stick with one set of photographic materials, and image making tools. Get to know them really well before trying other photographic materials.

Bernice

There is something to be said for a single film. BUT, how do you select a film? I think you can only do that by trying different ones. But even then, a single film with the same developer, temp, time, camera, lens will give results like those above. Completely unpredictable.

I think that you can assume that following the box instructions will give a usable result. That this can vary according to manufacturer and combination I agree. But not like the examples. And even when using the same film and same box recipe the results will vary as much. Not so when I use the same film and box recipe with MF.

[Tin Can]

I picked one film, Single Side 8X10 14X17 Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-ray to practice and use very little other films

Now out of production

I bought enough for my lifetime

I use Rodinol and vary ratios, 90%, I experiment 10% as I nailed my process 7 years ago

STEERMAN Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-ray film testing
https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs...y-film-testing

I listened to advice, that kept saying eliminate variables

I have 'fancy' film for my old age, I am 70

Sealed case of 11X14 'real' Kodak film when I grow up

[Alan Klein]

I have one more unpredictable that some others here in that I don't have a darkroom. So I'm depending on a pro lab to be consistent. Frankly, mistakes I've seen in negatives and chromes appear to be mine. But if any one has any suggestions regarding consistency with using labs, I'd be glad to hear them.

[BrianShaw]

I have one more unpredictable that some others here in that I don't have a darkroom. So I'm depending on a pro lab to be consistent. Frankly, mistakes I've seen in negatives and chromes appear to be mine. But if any one has any suggestions regarding consistency with using labs, I'd be glad to hear them.

My solution to that situation... use the same lab, one that has provided both good and error-free service in the past. The labs tend to have good process control and be quite consistent (processing, not necessarily scanning) in my experience.

[Michael R]

I love shooting LF but can attest to the veracity of this statement.

Most people get irritated when I write that, but you know...

[BrianShaw]

“ There is something to be said for a single film. BUT, how do you select a film?”

Pick a “normal” film that will work for the majority of your photography. I live in a sunny land so standardized on FP4+. In winter when the light is lower I use HP5+. Both processed per Ilford specs in DD-X. I can trust both film and chemistry to be reliable so that makes most of the remaining variation either my decision or my fault.

[Vaughn]

Or don't be in a hurry; use whatever films and developers one can find or has around, use them, make lots of prints, keep notes and keep an eye on one's old prints and compare them with the new ones. If things keep getting better, you are on the right track. If not, figure things out and keep going.

[Bernice Loui]

Much a matter of controlling THE process, taking out all variables possible. Do this and the results WILL be more consistent than is believed. Having done this for decades (since the early 1980's) it would be impossible to convince me otherwise. It works, it demands disciple, focus, self-control, respect for the photographic materials and taking zero for granted leaving near zero to chance. This is also why there is so much crowing about image goals first, lens required to achieve these goals then camera required to support the first two objectives as a view camera is essentially nothing more than a flexi light tight box.

The other most important factors are proven accurate light meter, film testing, strictly controlled film processing, high quality and consistent photographic materials. These factors are often FAR more important than any lens or camera or... to achieving image goal results.

This is also the divide in the Foto world, there are those who experiment with no end cost of curiosity and believing in happenstance for an expressive image to occur. Others apply strict discipline and exert as much control as possible to the photographic process to meet their image goals. Knowing what those image goals are to begin with goes a long ways to achieving this.

Ilford FP4 (now plus) has been a staple for decades, it has been essentially consistent, predictable, reliable. Second to this HP-5. Pick one film.

Suggest Kodak HC-110 or Rodinal as a developer. Pick one, then settle on a dilution ratio then stick to it.
Mix with highly filtered soft water or distilled water. Water quality impacts development quality. Get a Kodak Process thermometer or equally reliable-accurate-precise thermometer then stay with one processing temperature be it 68 or 70 degrees. Know hotter develops faster and more difficult to control.

Use a proper stop bath, and fixer at the same temperature as the developer.

Been using a Jobo processed with Epxert drums for decades. They work, they are absolutely capable of producing consistent results. Get spendy on film processing stuff instead of that new lens or camera or related widget as image meets paper during post process.

Do the film testing, film speed on the box often will not meet print image goals. Historically, FP4 has been used at ISO 50, not the ISO 125 as noted on the box. Same applies to development times. This is where the learning curve can get difficult, yet extremely rewarding. Once a system has been figured out via testing producing acceptable print results, STICK TO IT, Don't change for the sake of change or wanting to experiment.

Once the understanding of how metered light intensities and color alters these densities on film, that testing can be applied to gain the tonal range demanded in the print.

Stick to one lens-shutter-camera-light meter for the entire testing process. This goes a way to reduce variables.

It is much a matter and mind set of controlled discipline and working to gain an understanding and respect for these photographic materials and their personality. Once this is achieved, the focus can be pointed to creative image making. Without this, there is no foundation from which creative image making can be built.


Bernice

I'll start a new thread about this when I found where I'd do this best.

There is something to be said for a single film. BUT, how do you select a film? I think you can only do that by trying different ones. But even then, a single film with the same developer, temp, time, camera, lens will give results like those above. Completely unpredictable.

I think that you can assume that following the box instructions will give a usable result. That this can vary according to manufacturer and combination I agree. But not like the examples. And even when using the same film and same box recipe the results will vary as much. Not so when I use the same film and box recipe with MF.